Congress finds a disinfectant

Last November, voters said they'd had it with corruption that seemed to be commonplace in Congress. They could no longer dismiss the lavish gift-giving, campaign contributions and other influence-peddling tactics that had surfaced in lobbyist scandals. So they shoved the Republicans out and ushered in Democrats, who promised to disinfect the Capitol.
It's taken eight months, but Democrats have delivered a rat poison of sorts -- and since the election, most Republicans have tried to show that they're just as willing to set traps and wield brooms.
Last week, the House voted overwhelmingly (411-8) to change the rules on what is ethical for members of Congress. So did the Senate, where the vote was just as lopsided -- 83-14. Those are veto-proof numbers -- a rare occurrence these days on high-profile legislation. The reason for the strong support is simple: There was no good reason to give voters for opposing the most far-reaching revision of congressional ethics since Watergate.

Specifically, lawmakers must publicly disclose the names of lobbyists who raise more than $15,000 for them by bundling smaller contributions.
Lobbyists can no longer provide gifts or underwrite trips for members of Congress or their staffs. Rides on private planes are off limits to House members, while senators must reimburse the plane owner at charter rates.
Senators cannot lobby Congress for two years after leaving office; House members must wait one year.
Even donations by lobbyists to a charity controlled by a lawmaker, to a presidential library or an inaugural committee must be disclosed. And lobbyist-sponsored fundraising parties for candidates at political conventions are no-nos.
Earmarks, politically valuable special budget appropriations, must be posted two days before a vote. There may be no direct benefit to an earmark sponsor or his family.
Final consideration of these changes to eliminate abuse of earmarks came amid revelations that the FBI is investigating yet another senator -- Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska. Agents are looking into whether earmarks he pushed helped some of his son's real estate deals.
While the legislation represents a substantial change in congressional ethics, some "no" votes came from Republicans who maintained the new rules didn't go far enough. Of course the ethical don'ts could have been tougher. But this is one case in which settling for what's doable is quite satisfying.